In the May 2013 elections, the Allied Workers’ Group of the Philippines (AWGP), representing land-based and sea-based workers in the Philippines and overseas, won in the party list congressional elections. Atty. Abling, a labor lawyer, is its nominee.

As part of the party’s advocacy and services, Congressman Abling engages in labor counseling, particularly for local workers with claims against their employers and for those who need representation in collective bargaining negotiations with employers. When labor cases arise, AWGP enters its appearance in representation of the workers and the Congressman makes it a point to be there to accompany the workers, although a retained counsel also formally enters his appearance and is invariably there. Congressman Abling largely takes a passive role in the proceedings although he occasionally speaks to supplement the retained counsel’s statements. It is otherwise in CBA negotiations where he actively participates.

Management lawyers, feeling aggrieved that a congressman should not actively participate before labor tribunals and before employers because of the influence a congressman canc wield, filed a disbarment case against the Congressman before the Supreme Court for his violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for breach of trust, in relation particularly with the prohibitions on legislators under the Constitution.

5 comments

Yes the cited ground for disbarment is meritorious. Atty. Abling violated the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath when he violated the Constitutional prohibition on limited practice of profession. A violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Canons of the CPR can be grounds for disbarment.

Pareho tayo ng sagot astra, but on my part talagang wala na ako maisagot eh, hehe. I just took that a violation of the constitutional prohibition which is the fundamental law of all laws is a flagrant violation of of the lawyers oath to uphold the constitution and obey the laws, hahaha